Talk:Eastern Europe

@103.58.92.10: The arguments used in the edit summary of this edit are fallacious.

• First of all, there aren't 800 definitions of Central Europe, like Western Europe. Certainly not 800, but there are at least as many definitions of Central Europe as of Western Europe. Here are some quotes from the Central Europe article: "The issue of how to name and define the Central European area is subject to debates"; "The comprehension of the concept of Central Europe is an ongoing source of controversy"; "views on which countries belong to Central Europe are vastly varied". In fact, the second sentence says "Central Europe includes contiguous territories that are sometimes also considered parts of Western Europe, Southern Europe and Eastern Europe". Implying that Central Europe is somehow a well-defined area is utterly false.
• Second of all, Kaliningrad is located clearly in the central part of Europe. This is an opinion, not an argument, and the opinion is clearly not supported by reliable sources. Out of ten maps presented in the Map gallery in the Central Europe article, based on the definitions used in various sources, Kaliningrad is coloured in one, and then with the label "Countries considered to be Central European only in the broader sense of the term".
• Third of all check Central Europe#States, Kaliningrad is included. Kaliningrad is included in the discussion there, but not as an obvious part of Central Europe, only in the category "Some sources also add ..."

Stating without any reservations that Kaliningrad lies in Central Europe is completely inappropriate.

On another note, please make yourself familiar with WP:BRD. Your original introduction of this controversial statement here was a Bold edit, which is fine. However, when I Reverted it here, your next step should have been to start a Discussion in the talk page. I have now done this for you. Please keep the discussion here until a consensus is formed, see WP:CONSENSUS. Regards! --T*U (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Red Square, Moscow, Rusia.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Archives908, in the section Eastern Europe#Caucasus it is said about Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia (plus Abkhazia, Artsakh and South Ossetia) only. Thus link to Transcaucasia region (South Caucasus) is clearly more proper than to general Caucasus region, which includes Russian North Caucasus too. Delasse (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm aware of the differences. However, the term Caucasus is not used definitively in this case. European Russia is already included under "Former Soviet states", which by default includes the North Caucasus region. Archives908 (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Archives908 Still, I do not see why your version is better than mine. Delasse (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not saying its better or worse, just slightly unnecessary since the North Caucasus is already included under another acceptable definition (its grouped in with European Russia), so it's not like the region is being deliberately omitted. Furthermore, the term "Caucasus" (which has been used for many years here) is not an exhaustive definition, the section could always be expanded to include information about the North Caucasus. Although, I'm not sure what would be said or what benefits that would bring to the article since it is already grouped in with Russia proper. Regardless, the existing terminology remains acceptable since its more inclusive and probably more widely recognized- as your own BBC source confirmed. Archives908 (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

The current opening sentence is a textbook example of how NOT to start a Wikipedia article. It's literally redundant, with no informational value, like saying "Red is the color red" or "New York City is the city of New York". I changed it to something less pointless, which was reverted, on the grounds that we can do better. Perhaps, but "Eastern Europe is the eastern region of Europe" is objectively worse. Identifying it as the region "adjacent to Asia" at least tells the reader something (a basic geographic fact that is otherwise missing from the lede, by the way). If someone has better suggestions, I'm glad to hear them. But if we can't identify the subject with a simple declarative statement of what it is, the alternative isn't to write "Red is red", but to explain why we can't, such as "Eastern Europe is a region with a wide range of geopolitical, geographical, ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic definitions." -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the rationale to alter the lead. The only issue here, is that technically speaking Eastern Europe is not the only landmass "adjacent to Asia". From a wider perspective, the Western most portion of Eurasia (including Western Europe, Southern Europe, Northern Europe) is all "adjacent to Asia". Not to mention, so is Oceania and other landmasses surrounding Asia. Perhaps, it's minor nitpicking, however, it could be confusing to readers. It's possible that readers may assume Eastern Europe is the only region "adjacent to Asia"- when it's not. Asia itself is so vast, Eastern Europe is not adjacent to all of it. More specifically, Eastern Europe only borders Central Asia and Western Asia (if I'm not mistaken). I'm not entirely opposed to the suggestion presented above, but some time to brainstorm alternatives wouldn't be a bad thing. Perhaps we can somehow try and focus more on Eastern Europe's geography within Europe (ie. east of Western Europe)? Or, we can alter the lingo of the suggestion to avoid using vague/ broad definitions of the massive neighboring landmass that is Asia (ie. west of Central Asia)? Any other editors have recommendations? Cheers, Archives908 (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I wrote: "Eastern Europe is a region of Europe adjacent to Asia." No one who understand the words of this sentence would think it refers to the Pacific Ocean or Africa. It does not imply in any way that it is the "only" place adjacent to Asia. "Adjacent" simply means that X and Y are next to each other. Eastern Europe (as a region) and Asia (another region) have a shared border, therefore they are adjacent. This is basic geographic terminology. (As for describing eastern Europe as "east of western Europe" that's just as uselessly obvious as calling it "the eastern region of Europe".) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've added a paragraph about this term being also pejorative in some contexts; this probably should be split into a dedicated section. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

The southern Caucasus is a geographical region of West Asia, the name itself tells you that it's on the southern side of the Caucasus not the northern "technically" European one and even if you want to argue that it somehow belongs on Eastern Europe because the political entities occupying the region have (tiny) bits of territory "technically" in Europe (Armenia has none by any definition) then why are places such as Turkey which has way more population and territory actually in Europe not particularly touched upon unlike them? Kazakhstan is also missing from the article being mentioned only once

189.193.88.11 (talk) 07:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Some definitions of EE include it, that's why. Not all. It's all murky. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Articles like this one drove me nuts. The cultural division of Europe - West vs East come from the division of the Roman Empire and resulting division of Christianity into Latin rite and Greek rite. The “West” is everything that evolved under the control of Rome and Holy Roman Empire. The “East” is everything that evolved under the control of Constantinople. Western (Latin, Catholic, later Protestant) Europe and Eastern (Greek, Orthodox) Europe had completely different developmental trajectories. Countries like Bohemia / Czechia, Poland, Hungary, were Latin, Catholic, and experienced Middle Ages, Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, while Eastern countries had completely different developmental trajectories. How can Czechia be in “Eastern Europe”, when the capital of the Holy Roman Empire was there, at one time? This is why Wiki is garbage…

The reason why American propaganda post-WW2 considered Central Europe / eastern part of “the West” as “Eastern Europe” was so Roosevelt did not have to explain how he gave away 40% of the free Western Europe to Soviets in Yalta… But that blunder does not Reese’s 1100 years of history, where the 10th century dukes of Czechia and Poland answered to the Holy Roman Emperor and the Pope, not the Emperor of Constantinople and it’s Patriarch. 2A01:113F:4110:D700:7197:D9EF:3D57:9B48 (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I suggest creating such an article based on the history section here, which then could be shortened. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

The history of Eastern Europe is certainly a topic which could see not only its own article but a number of sub-articles, however I wouldn't split things from this page as it stands, without the History section there would be very little left. CMD (talk) 07:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Chipmunkdavis I am not suggesting to blank that section, but basically, copy all of it to the subarticle (which would become the main article for Category:History of Eastern Europe, which already exists, then we can shorten it here a bit (mabe by half, no more, possibly less). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think that would be a good idea in a more developed article, and I think copying the History to a subarticle for expansion makes sense too, my view for this article relates to the current situation where the article outside of that section is about 12 paragraphs in Definition. CMD (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I saw this and decided to start a draft of it. Instead of doing what you suggesting which was to copy the history section from this article and then shorten the history section here after the creation of the History of Eastern Europe article, I decided to start from scratch and make the article way more in-depth than the history section of this article. Currently I finished the Paleolithic section of the article and I am currently working on the Neolithic section.

Anyway here is the link: Draft:History of Eastern Europe. Feel free to help me if you want.

I will submit the draft once it is finished. Outlined Sandbox (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Outlined Sandbox Awesome :) Looking forward to seeing it completed. When it is done, you should WP:DYK it (let me know if you'll need help with the procedure). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have retired from Wikipedia. Feel free to work on the draft though I will not be editing on Wikipedia or the draft any longer (and even I do come back it will probably be in a long time). So anyways bye. Outlined Sandbox (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Outlined Sandbox I am sorry to hear that. What happened? Could I ask you to reconsider? I have been wronged here many times myself, but in the end, I have decided that I matter less than the good that this project is doing, so I stick around, even through ingratitude is much more common than it should be... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I decided to come back. I quit for a few days because I tired and didn't feel like I could be bothered to continue editing. I have come back though and I am fine now. :) Outlined Sandbox 2 (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The map is ridiculous. All other maps of different sub regions are clearly highlighted and all boundaries shown like EU, Schengen area, East African community, AU. So why this nonsense of just some plain map and no borders or highlight. 197.186.4.188 (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Frankly speaking, I would like to see more information about Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine in the article, because I have the feeling that the states of the eastern part of the European Union, which is now considered to be Central Europe, are given as many as two articles - as well as the article about Central Europe, and the article about Eastern Europe. For example, the article contains a lot of information about the European integration of Central European countries, but there is no mention of the same integration of Ukraine and Moldova, which are currently at the stage of negotiations, as well as the Western Balkans.

I understand that these countries used to be considered Eastern Europe, but it feels like this article is simply duplicating the history and politics from the Central Europe article. In particular, to add more information about the history of the Eastern Slavs before Kyivan Rus, the history of Kyivan Rus itself, the Kingdom of Ruthenia (the Kingdom of Volhynia–Galicia), the Republic of Novgorod, Muscovy, Russian Empire, the Principality of Moldavia, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania on Ruthenian lands (including modern Belarusian), Cossack Hetmanate, Ukrainian People's Republic, Western Ukrainian People's Republic, Belarusian People's Republic, etc. Надія Лі (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply